This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Originally Posted by maquiscat

1) Agreed, they are not even the norm for the idiot FLDS.

2)What evidence do you have that the "common" polygamist is having thier other spouses (note that some of us don't usethe stereotype of the one man many wives) on welfare? What evidence do you have that the FLDS members are the "common" polygamist?

3) Agreed, the FLDS members are abusive f**ks in how their treat their women and offspring, both the boys and the girls.

Read Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" - covers a range of polygamous communities, talks about their use of welfare, and their abuse of the women and girls (and sometimes the young men who are driven out to leave more women for the old guys).

Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

re the whole discussion of "did DOMA affect this?" remember - the judge explicitly said it's still illegal to marry more than one person (at a time); this decision was about legalizaing co-habitation, about which DOMA had nothing to say.

Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Originally Posted by paddymcdougall

Read Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" - covers a range of polygamous communities, talks about their use of welfare, and their abuse of the women and girls (and sometimes the young men who are driven out to leave more women for the old guys).

If I can find a copy at the library, I might consider it. But let's just look at the summery over at Amazon:

Originally Posted by http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/1400032806

Jon Krakauer’s literary reputation rests on insightful chronicles of lives conducted at the outer limits. He now shifts his focus from extremes of physical adventure to extremes of religious belief within our own borders, taking readers inside isolated American communities where some 40,000 Mormon Fundamentalists still practice polygamy. Defying both civil authorities and the Mormon establishment in Salt Lake City, the renegade leaders of these Taliban-like theocracies are zealots who answer only to God.

You are still only focusing on the FLDS members and not the poly community at large. There are a hell of a lot more of us out here then just those wackos in the mid-west. For that matter they don't practice polygamy at all. They practice polygyny. I challenge you to find among them even one family that is practising polyandry. Of course most people are too lazy to bother to learn the difference between the three words.

Among the rest of the poly community, however, polyandry is practised. We are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and even atheists and agnostics, sometimes all blended into a single family. Some of our families/marriages are closed, others are open. Some of the poly community do not practice any kind of marriage, save maybe "common law". The rest of us abhor the abuses that the FLDS members and the mid-east Muslims practice.

Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Maquiscat, I agree the FLDS gives a bad name to polygamy.

I have no problem with fully informed consenting adults being in some form of a polyamorous relationship. If they are adult enough to handle it, to do powers of attorney and contracts to ensure everyone is taken care of and that splits are dealt with - no prob, go for it.

I don't know how many are actually practicing polyamourous relationships outside of FLDS and other religious, generally misogynist, sects. If you have the numbers for that, I'd love to see them.

Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

No one said you said "the article mentioned DOMA" What was pointed out that it was *you* who mentioned DOMA and you expressed the opinion that DOMA had something to do with the decision.

Now you're running away from it and tossing out straw men in a futile attempt to distract from what you said.

Running from what? I said what I believe bro. As you pointed out a few posts later. I'm merely pointing to the fact that a few people on this thread were mistaken in thinking that the article referenced DOMA in any way.
Further, I believe DOMA has effect on other cases involving marriage. Your claim is that our justice system DOESN'T consider precedents that have been set? If I were a judge and saw that section 3 of DOMA had been struck down, I would take that as setting the precedent that no gov't entity can restrict who gets married to who. I BELIEVE that this held weight in this particular case. Now, instead of your standard "well that's just stupid/a strawman/dumb" counterpoint, lets hear why you think I'm wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger. ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.  Thomas Jefferson

Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Originally Posted by paddymcdougall

re the whole discussion of "did DOMA affect this?" remember - the judge explicitly said it's still illegal to marry more than one person (at a time); this decision was about legalizaing co-habitation, about which DOMA had nothing to say.

Understood. Just trying to move the argument forward.

Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger. ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.  Thomas Jefferson

Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Originally Posted by paddymcdougall

Maquiscat, I agree the FLDS gives a bad name to polygamy.

I have no problem with fully informed consenting adults being in some form of a polyamorous relationship. If they are adult enough to handle it, to do powers of attorney and contracts to ensure everyone is taken care of and that splits are dealt with - no prob, go for it.

I don't know how many are actually practicing polyamourous relationships outside of FLDS and other religious, generally misogynist, sects. If you have the numbers for that, I'd love to see them.

Start with groups like Loving More and The Polyamory Society. You might be better than me with searches and are able to find some raw statistics. If you already have kinks, you can also look up the large number of poly groups on Fetlife. (For some people poly is a kink! LOL) Now I will note that there seems to be some reluctance among at least some of the poly community to use the work polygamy, either because of the link to the FLDS or because of the lack of real legal standing. But most of us will talk about our poly families. And if you're talking about families usually you're talking marriage of some sort.

Oh I think Our America had also done a show on poly. You should be able to get some clips from there was well.

Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Originally Posted by MarineTpartier

Running from what? I said what I believe bro. As you pointed out a few posts later. I'm merely pointing to the fact that a few people on this thread were mistaken in thinking that the article referenced DOMA in any way.

Your post is full of crap. Absolutely no one said anything about the article referencing DOMA. In fact, numerous people pointed out that the article had *nothing* to do with DOMA (or marriage)

Further, I believe DOMA has effect on other cases involving marriage. Your claim is that our justice system DOESN'T consider precedents that have been set?

Now your post is hypocritical. You complain about others reading something into your OP (even though no one did that) and now you're imagining that I something about precedent.

I didn't

If I were a judge and saw that section 3 of DOMA had been struck down, I would take that as setting the precedent that no gov't entity can restrict who gets married to who. I BELIEVE that this held weight in this particular case. Now, instead of your standard "well that's just stupid/a strawman/dumb" counterpoint, lets hear why you think I'm wrong.

You can say that but you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim. So let's review:

1) You say some people in this thread have mistakenly claimed that the article in your OP references DOMA - you have no evidence to support this

2) You say that I said something about precedence - you have no evidence to support this

3) You say that DOMA somehow affected this judge's opinion about whether the govt can restrict who can get married - you have no evidence to support this

So in answer to "lets hear why you think I'm wrong" I say "you have no evidence to support what you say"

Last edited by sangha; 12-18-13 at 11:20 PM.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I don't have any issue with any investigation.

Originally Posted by jaeger19

the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..